4.7 Article

The electric commons: A qualitative study of community accountability

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 106, Issue -, Pages 12-21

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.035

Keywords

Community infrastructure; Demand Response; Energy commons; Privacy; Smart meters; Surveillance

Funding

  1. EPSRC
  2. BuroHappold Engineering through the University of Surrey CES EngD programme
  3. Low Carbon Networks Fund
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1770359] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores how energy might be conceptualised as a commons, a resource owned and managed by a community with a system of rules for production and consumption. It tests one aspect of Elinor Ostrom's design principles for successful management of common pool resources: that there should be community accountability for individual consumption behaviour. This is explored through interviews with participants in a community demand response (DR) trial in an urban neighbourhood in the UK. Domestic DR can make a contribution to balancing electricity supply and demand. This relies on smart meters, which raise vertical (individual to large organisation) privacy concerns. Community and local approaches could motivate greater levels of DR than price signals alone. We found that acting as part of a community is motivating, a conclusion which supports local and community based roll out of smart meters. Mutually supportive, voluntary, and anonymous sharing of information was welcomed. However, mutual monitoring was seen as an invasion of horizontal (peer to peer) privacy. We conclude that the research agenda, which asks whether local commons based governance of electricity systems could provide social and environmental benefits, is worth pursuing further. This needs a shift in regulatory barriers and 'governance-system neutral' innovation funding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available